Predicting Who Plays the Toughest Schedule

The question arises each year, “Who plays the toughest schedule?” At the beginning of the season, the NCAA usually releases a rating of each team’s schedule based on their opponents’ win/loss record from the previous season. This is a good method but it does have its obvious flaws.

The first flaw is basing the ratings on opponents’ records from the previous season. Let’s look at a couple of examples. At the start of 2007 I had Illinois rated as one of the top teams in the Big Ten and they went on to knock off #1 Ohio St and play in the ROSE BOWL. My ratings had them as an above avg opponent at the start of the year and they finished the regular season #13 (AP). Using 2006’s record as the criteria for determining the strength of an opps’ schedule, however you would count them as a 2-10 team!

The second flaw is basing it on pure overall records. If a team plays a FCS (IAA) school that was 11-1 in 2007, that would have counted as a MUCH tougher game in the NCAA ratings than facing a team like Alabama who was 7-6 in ‘07 but #1 at the end of ‘08 regular season! My ratings had Bama ranked as a much tougher team than an FCS foe.

Let’s first look at the NCAA rankings. Below is a chart of all 120 teams and the combined 2008 opponents’ records from last year. It is ranked in order of highest % of opponent wins (or toughest schedule) to lowest % of opponent wins (or easiest schedule). This is the same chart that was printed on page 317 in last year’s college preview magazine.

2009′s Opponent Winning % Preseason NCAA Method

(Based on 2008 Records)

rk

name

foe wins

foe loss

foe win %

1

Florida St

101

55

64.70%

2

Oklahoma St

97

55

63.80%

3

Syracuse

98

57

63.20%

4

S Carolina

98

58

62.80%

5

Auburn

96

58

62.30%

6

Baylor

95

58

62.10%

6

Miss St

95

58

62.10%

8

Wyoming

94

59

61.40%

9

Texas Tech

91

59

60.70%

10

Miami, Fl

93

61

60.40%

11

Minnesota

91

61

59.90%

12

Oklahoma

91

62

59.50%

13

Maryland

92

63

59.40%

14

New Mexico

89

63

58.60%

15

Clemson

90

64

58.40%

15

Virginia

90

64

58.40%

17

Louisville

89

65

57.80%

17

NC State

89

65

57.80%

19

Virginia Tech

90

66

57.70%

20

San Jose St

87

64

57.60%

21

UNLV

88

65

57.50%

21

Vanderbilt

88

65

57.50%

23

Arkansas

87

65

57.20%

23

Georgia Tech

87

65

57.20%

23

USF

87

65

57.20%

26

Iowa

87

66

56.90%

27

Indiana

85

65

56.70%

28

Illinois

86

66

56.60%

28

Michigan St

86

66

56.60%

30

Duke

87

67

56.50%

31

Nebraska

85

67

55.90%

31

West Virginia

85

67

55.90%

33

N Carolina

86

68

55.80%

33

Tennessee

86

68

55.80%

35

Oregon

83

68

55.00%

35

Utah St

83

68

55.00%

37

Miami, Oh

84

69

54.90%

37

Wake Forest

84

69

54.90%

39

East Carolina

85

70

54.80%

39

Pittsburgh

85

70

54.80%

41

Kansas

82

68

54.70%

41

Michigan

82

68

54.70%

43

Georgia

83

69

54.60%

44

Florida

82

69

54.30%

44

Kentucky

82

69

54.30%

46

UCF

83

70

54.20%

46

Wisconsin

83

70

54.20%

48

Colorado

81

70

53.60%

48

Colorado St

81

70

53.60%

50

Kansas St

80

70

53.30%

51

LSU

81

71

53.30%

51

Washington

81

71

53.30%

53

Boston College

82

72

53.20%

54

Missouri

79

70

53.00%

55

BYU

80

71

53.00%

55

Tulsa

80

71

53.00%

57

Arizona

79

71

52.70%

57

Texas

79

71

52.70%

59

Stanford

80

72

52.60%

60

Air Force

77

70

52.40%

61

Memphis

79

72

52.30%

62

Tulane

78

72

52.00%

63

Bowling Green

79

73

52.00%

63

Connecticut

79

73

52.00%

63

Purdue

79

73

52.00%

66

C Michigan

80

74

51.90%

67

Rice

79

74

51.60%

68

Texas A&M

76

73

51.00%

69

Cincinnati

77

74

51.00%

69

Houston

77

74

51.00%

71

SMU

78

75

51.00%

72

New Mexico St

82

79

50.90%

73

Rutgers

70

68

50.70%

74

Iowa St

75

73

50.70%

74

San Diego St

75

73

50.70%

76

California

76

74

50.70%

77

Washington St

77

75

50.70%

78

Utah

75

74

50.30%

79

UTEP

77

76

50.30%

80

Fresno St

76

76

50.00%

80

Nevada

76

76

50.00%

80

Ohio St

75

75

50.00%

80

Oregon St

75

75

50.00%

80

Toledo

75

75

50.00%

85

Navy

82

83

49.70%

86

Notre Dame

76

77

49.70%

87

FIU

75

76

49.70%

87

USC

75

76

49.70%

89

North Texas

74

76

49.30%

89

TCU

74

76

49.30%

91

WKU

73

75

49.30%

92

Mississippi

68

70

49.30%

93

Hawaii

80

83

49.10%

94

Arizona St

74

77

49.00%

95

Penn St

73

76

49.00%

96

UAB

74

78

48.70%

97

Temple

73

78

48.30%

98

E Michigan

72

78

48.00%

98

UCLA

72

78

48.00%

100

Louisiana Tech

71

77

48.00%

101

Marshall

72

79

47.70%

102

Ohio

70

79

47.00%

103

Boise St

77

87

47.00%

104

ULM

68

80

45.90%

105

Buffalo

66

80

45.20%

106

Southern Miss

68

83

45.00%

107

Akron

67

82

45.00%

108

Louisiana

66

81

44.90%

109

Idaho

68

84

44.70%

110

Alabama

67

83

44.70%

111

Northwestern

66

83

44.30%

112

N Illinois

65

83

43.90%

113

Arkansas St

64

83

43.50%

113

Troy

64

83

43.50%

115

W Michigan

65

86

43.00%

116

Army

64

85

43.00%

116

Middle Tenn

64

85

43.00%

118

Ball St

63

85

42.60%

119

Kent St

63

86

42.30%

120

Florida Atlantic

61

86

41.50%

Now let’s take a look at my rankings which were included on page 318 in last year’s magazine and are listed below.

These rankings take two major factors into account. The first is my 9 sets of Power Ratings. This ensures that an FCS team is rated much lower than Miami, Fl which was 7-6 in 2008.

The second factor is the amount of home and away games played. As an example, this year some teams will have as many as 8 home games, while others play as many as 8 on the road.

Phil Steele’s 2009 Toughest Schedules Preseason

Rank

Team

Rk

Team

Rk

Team

Rk

Team

1

S Carolina

31

Missouri

61

Iowa St

91

Southern Miss

2

Florida St

32

Indiana

62

NC State

92

Fresno St

3

Oklahoma

33

Purdue

63

Kansas St

93

Louisiana Tech

4

Mississippi St

34

Florida

64

East Carolina

94

Nevada

5

Minnesota

35

Nebraska

65

San Jose St

95

E Michigan

6

Arkansas

36

Notre Dame

66

USF

96

New Mexico St

7

Georgia

37

Wake Forest

67

UAB

97

C Michigan

8

Virginia Tech

38

UCLA

68

Alabama

98

WKU

9

Tennessee

39

Ohio St

69

Rice

99

Toledo

10

Michigan St

40

Texas

70

Cincinnati

100

Hawaii

11

Oregon

41

Texas A&M

71

BYU

101

Louisiana

12

Miami, Fl

42

Illinois

72

Penn St

102

San Diego St

13

Virginia

43

Connecticut

73

New Mexico

103

ULM

14

Oklahoma St

44

Wyoming

74

UNLV

104

Temple

15

Auburn

45

Clemson

75

FIU

105

North Texas

16

Washington

46

Colorado

76

Tulane

106

Rutgers

17

USC

47

Boston College

77

Mississippi

107

Idaho

18

Baylor

48

Arizona St

78

Colorado St

108

Arkansas St

19

Texas Tech

49

Louisville

79

Houston

109

Troy

20

Washington St

50

N Carolina

80

Utah St

110

Buffalo

21

LSU

51

California

81

Utah

111

Middle Tenn

22

Stanford

52

Kentucky

82

UTEP

112

N Illinois

23

Vanderbilt

53

Wisconsin

83

Bowling Green

113

Akron

24

Arizona

54

Pittsburgh

84

Marshall

114

W Michigan

25

Maryland

55

Oregon St

85

Northwestern

115

Ball St

26

Kansas

56

UCF

86

Miami, Oh

116

Florida Atlantic

27

Georgia Tech

57

Memphis

87

Navy

117

Boise St

28

Iowa

58

Duke

88

TCU

118

Army

29

Michigan

59

West Virginia

89

Air Force

119

Ohio

30

Syracuse

60

Tulsa

90

SMU

120

Kent St

Below is the final Opponent Winning % based on 2009 records. I have taken out the teams record in these rankings. For example, Ohio St’s opponents actual record were 82-70 (53.9%) on the season but when you take out the Buckeyes 11-2 record, the opponent record jumps to 80-59 (57.5%) On the flip side, Western Kentucky opponents finished 75-75 (50%) on the season but when you take out the Hilltoppers 0-12 record it falls to just 63-75 (45.7%). I don not think good teams should be penalized for beating a majority of their opponents while weaker teams get rewarded for not winning a majority of their games.

Final 2009 Opponent Winning % Preseason

(based on 2009 Records)

Rank

Team

Foe Wins

Foe Losses

Foe Win %

1

Miss St

97

47

67.36%

2

Florida St

91

50

64.54%

3

S Carolina

91

51

64.08%

4

Arkansas

89

52

63.12%

5

Minnesota

86

53

61.87%

5

West Virginia

86

53

61.87%

7

IOWA

85

53

61.59%

8

Virginia Tech

88

55

61.54%

9

Miami, Fl

86

54

61.43%

10

Georgia

86

55

60.99%

11

Syracuse

85

55

60.71%

12

Pittsburgh

83

54

60.58%

13

Virginia

87

57

60.42%

14

Oregon

84

56

60.00%

15

Michigan St

82

55

59.85%

16

Arizona

83

56

59.71%

16

Auburn

83

56

59.71%

16

Oklahoma

83

56

59.71%

19

Alabama

81

56

59.12%

20

Illinois

81

58

58.27%

20

LSU

81

58

58.27%

22

Louisville

81

59

57.86%

22

Oklahoma St

81

59

57.86%

24

Miami, OH

82

60

57.75%

25

Clemson

79

58

57.66%

26

Ohio St

80

59

57.55%

27

Connecticut

79

59

57.25%

27

N Carolina

79

59

57.25%

29

Baylor

80

62

56.34%

29

Wake Forest

80

62

56.34%

31

Florida

77

60

56.20%

32

Washington

79

62

56.03%

33

Tennessee

80

63

55.94%

34

Georgia Tech

76

60

55.88%

34

USF

76

60

55.88%

36

Wisconsin

77

61

55.80%

37

Colorado

79

63

55.63%

38

Penn St

76

61

55.47%

38

Texas

76

61

55.47%

38

Wyoming

76

61

55.47%

41

East Carolina

77

62

55.40%

42

Missouri

76

62

55.07%

43

Marshall

77

63

55.00%

44

TCU

75

62

54.74%

45

Texas Tech

76

63

54.68%

45

UNLV

76

63

54.68%

47

Notre Dame

77

64

54.61%

47

Utah St

77

64

54.61%

49

Mississippi

74

62

54.41%

50

Fresno St

75

63

54.35%

51

Kansas

76

64

54.29%

51

Tulane

76

64

54.29%

53

Oregon St

74

63

54.01%

54

Colorado St

75

64

53.96%

54

Maryland

75

64

53.96%

56

Memphis

76

65

53.90%

56

San Jose St

76

65

53.90%

56

Washington St

76

65

53.90%

59

Kansas St

74

64

53.62%

59

Kentucky

74

64

53.62%

59

USC

74

64

53.62%

62

Cincinnati

73

64

53.28%

63

FIU

74

65

53.24%

63

Purdue

74

65

53.24%

65

Vanderbilt

75

66

53.19%

66

Indiana

72

64

52.94%

67

NC ST

73

65

52.90%

68

Bowling Green

74

66

52.86%

69

Louisiana Tech

75

67

52.82%

70

Nebraska

71

64

52.59%

71

Air Force

72

65

52.55%

72

UCLA

72

66

52.17%

73

SMU

73

67

52.14%

74

Duke

71

66

51.82%

75

Buffalo

72

67

51.80%

75

San Diego St

72

67

51.80%

75

UCF

72

67

51.80%

78

Navy

76

71

51.70%

79

Rutgers

69

65

51.49%

80

California

71

67

51.45%

81

New Mexico

72

68

51.43%

82

Michigan

69

66

51.11%

83

Boston College

70

67

51.09%

83

BYU

70

67

51.09%

85

Arizona St

71

68

51.08%

86

Iowa St

69

67

50.74%

87

Texas A&M

70

68

50.72%

88

Rice

72

70

50.70%

89

Akron

70

69

50.36%

90

Utah

68

68

50.00%

91

Stanford

68

69

49.64%

92

Hawaii

75

77

49.34%

93

New Mexico St

73

75

49.32%

94

Ball St

69

72

48.94%

94

UAB

69

72

48.94%

96

Boise St

72

76

48.65%

97

Nevada

66

72

47.83%

98

Troy

65

71

47.79%

99

Temple

66

73

47.48%

100

Tulsa

66

74

47.14%

101

Louisiana

64

72

47.06%

102

ULM

63

73

46.32%

103

Idaho

63

75

45.65%

103

North Texas

63

75

45.65%

103

WKU

63

75

45.65%

106

E Michigan

62

76

44.93%

106

Florida Atlantic

62

76

44.93%

108

Arkansas St

61

75

44.85%

109

Houston

58

76

43.28%

109

Southern Miss

58

76

43.28%

111

C Michigan

57

75

43.18%

112

UTEP

60

79

43.17%

113

Northwestern

58

77

42.96%

114

Toledo

58

80

42.03%

115

Ohio

55

79

41.04%

116

Kent St

56

81

40.88%

117

N Illinois

55

81

40.44%

118

Army

52

85

37.96%

119

Middle Tenn

50

84

37.31%

120

W Michigan

50

85

37.04%

So who is more accurate the NCAA or Phil Steele when it comes to predicting strength of schedule?

Pre-Season Rankings Compared to Final

Phil Steele

NCAA

# of Predicted Rankings Exact

7

2

# of Pred Rank +/- 3

22

17

# of Pred Rank +/- 5

31

26

# of Pred Rank +/- 10

47

44

Overall Phil Steele 64-54-2

As you can see I predicted 7 teams’ schedule strength exactly right (Arkansas St, Army, Florida St, Louisiana, Minnesota, Virginia and Virginia Tech) compared to just 2 for the NCAA. I also came within 3 final ranking spots of 22 teams compared to just 17 for the NCAA and overall my preseason predictions ended up being more accurate than the NCAA for 64 teams (54%)!

Here are a couple of examples which prove why my rankings are superior. In the preseason the NCAA had New Mexico facing the 14th toughest schedule based on 2008 opponent records. The Lobos faced a grand total of 2 BCS conference teams! There are 65 BCS conference schools and ALL 65 would love to have traded their schedule for New Mexico’s, which my ratings ranked as the 73rd toughest schedule. When the 2009 season concluded New Mexico finished with the 81st toughest schedule based on opponent win % which was 67 spots lower than the NCAA predicted but just 8 spots below where I had them ranked in the preseason!

Also According to the NCAA’s method, NCSt played the 17th toughest schedule and Alabama faced the 110th toughest (11th easiest). Coming into the season Alabama’s opponents 2008 records were 67-83 (44.47%) while NC St opponnents were 89-65 (57.8%) in 2008. The two teams did have 2 mutual opponents in South Carolina and Virginia Tech but Alabama played in a much tougher conference. When the 2009 season concluded my schedule strength was far more accurate than the NCAA. Alabama opponents finished 81-56 (59.1%) while NC St opponents finished 73-65 (52.9%). The Crimson Tide finished with the 19th hardest schedule which was 91 spots higher than what the NCAA predicted! NC St meanwhile finished with 67th hardest schedule just 5 spots lower than what I predicted but 50 spots lower than what the NCAA predicted!

Ohio St opponents were just 75-75 in 2008 and the NCAA ranked the Buckeyes schedule as the 80th hardest in the preseason while I had them facing the 39th toughest schedule. When the season concluded Buckeye opponents went 80-59 (57.6%) and finished with the 26th toughest schedule which was 54 spots higher than the NCAA but just 13 spots higher than my rankings.

This year when you are looking at your favorite teams schedule make sure to check my rankings compared to what the NCAA has and see for yourself who is more accurate. I will be be back on Wednesday to take a look at this year’s toughest schedules.

Before the season, rankings and strength of schedule projections are all guesswork IMO. After a season and the bowls, we have a much clearer idea of how good a team, or conference actually was in that particular year.

Clearly, at least to me, the SEC as a whole was not very good last year, although many still viewed it as the best conference priot to the start of the season, for example.

http://twitter.com/BlockONation Block-O-Nation

Before the season, rankings and strength of schedule projections are all guesswork IMO. After a season and the bowls, we have a much clearer idea of how good a team, or conference actually was in that particular year.

Clearly, at least to me, the SEC as a whole was not very good last year, although many still viewed it as the best conference priot to the start of the season, for example.